Registration Practices of Randomized Clinical Trials in Rhinosinusitis: A Cross-sectional Review

Andrew Ross, David George, Cole Wayant, Tom Hamilton, Matt Vassar

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Importance: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) play an important role in the development of clinical practice guidelines and in clinical decision making. Little is known about the registration practices of RCTs in the diagnosis and treatment of rhinosinusitis. Objectives: The primary outcome was the frequency of reported RCT registry numbers by authors of rhinosinusitis RCTs. A secondary outcome was the rates of selective reporting bias in RCTs that were prospectively registered. A tertiary outcome end point was the frequency of publication of RCTs registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Evidence Review: Our sample was derived from a PubMed (MEDLINE) search performed on October 31, 2017, using the keywords "sinusitis OR rhinosinusitis OR rhinitis," and filtering by date (January 1, 2015, through October 31, 2017) and study type (RCT). Studies that were considered an RCT were included for the primary outcome analysis. All RCTs that were registered prior to or during patient enrollment were included for secondary outcome analysis. For the tertiary outcome, a search was performed on ClinicalTrials.gov on September 4, 2018, using the keywords "sinusitis OR rhinosinusitis," and filtering by date (January 1, 2013, through October 31, 2015). All analysis took place between October 29, 2018, and October 31, 2018. Findings: A total of 179 RCTs were analyzed for our primary outcome: 94 (52.5%) included a registration number in their publication, and 70 (39.1%) were included for secondary outcome analysis of rates of selective reporting bias. Of these 70 RCTs, 22 (31%) were found to have at least 1 major discrepancy between trial registration and publication. For the tertiary outcome, 52 completed clinical trials were identified on ClinicalTrials.gov, of which 21 (40%) had listed publication in the registry. Conclusions and Relevance: We found that published rhinosinusitis RCTs frequently do not include a trial registration number and that registered RCTs frequently are not published. Furthermore, RCTs that are registered often display selective reporting of their outcomes and frequently favor positive results. We recommend strict adherence to RCT registration policies and the enforcement of accurate reporting to help strengthen the evidence behind clinical decision making.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)468-474
Number of pages7
JournalJAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Volume145
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 May 2019

Fingerprint

Randomized Controlled Trials
Publications
Sinusitis
Registries
Rhinitis
Practice Guidelines
PubMed
MEDLINE
Clinical Trials

Cite this

@article{dd828cff5d9a44bdb5c191faf1a496e7,
title = "Registration Practices of Randomized Clinical Trials in Rhinosinusitis: A Cross-sectional Review",
abstract = "Importance: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) play an important role in the development of clinical practice guidelines and in clinical decision making. Little is known about the registration practices of RCTs in the diagnosis and treatment of rhinosinusitis. Objectives: The primary outcome was the frequency of reported RCT registry numbers by authors of rhinosinusitis RCTs. A secondary outcome was the rates of selective reporting bias in RCTs that were prospectively registered. A tertiary outcome end point was the frequency of publication of RCTs registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Evidence Review: Our sample was derived from a PubMed (MEDLINE) search performed on October 31, 2017, using the keywords {"}sinusitis OR rhinosinusitis OR rhinitis,{"} and filtering by date (January 1, 2015, through October 31, 2017) and study type (RCT). Studies that were considered an RCT were included for the primary outcome analysis. All RCTs that were registered prior to or during patient enrollment were included for secondary outcome analysis. For the tertiary outcome, a search was performed on ClinicalTrials.gov on September 4, 2018, using the keywords {"}sinusitis OR rhinosinusitis,{"} and filtering by date (January 1, 2013, through October 31, 2015). All analysis took place between October 29, 2018, and October 31, 2018. Findings: A total of 179 RCTs were analyzed for our primary outcome: 94 (52.5{\%}) included a registration number in their publication, and 70 (39.1{\%}) were included for secondary outcome analysis of rates of selective reporting bias. Of these 70 RCTs, 22 (31{\%}) were found to have at least 1 major discrepancy between trial registration and publication. For the tertiary outcome, 52 completed clinical trials were identified on ClinicalTrials.gov, of which 21 (40{\%}) had listed publication in the registry. Conclusions and Relevance: We found that published rhinosinusitis RCTs frequently do not include a trial registration number and that registered RCTs frequently are not published. Furthermore, RCTs that are registered often display selective reporting of their outcomes and frequently favor positive results. We recommend strict adherence to RCT registration policies and the enforcement of accurate reporting to help strengthen the evidence behind clinical decision making.",
author = "Andrew Ross and David George and Cole Wayant and Tom Hamilton and Matt Vassar",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1001/jamaoto.2019.0145",
language = "English",
volume = "145",
pages = "468--474",
journal = "JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery",
issn = "2168-6181",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "5",

}

Registration Practices of Randomized Clinical Trials in Rhinosinusitis : A Cross-sectional Review. / Ross, Andrew; George, David; Wayant, Cole; Hamilton, Tom; Vassar, Matt.

In: JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vol. 145, No. 5, 01.05.2019, p. 468-474.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Registration Practices of Randomized Clinical Trials in Rhinosinusitis

T2 - A Cross-sectional Review

AU - Ross, Andrew

AU - George, David

AU - Wayant, Cole

AU - Hamilton, Tom

AU - Vassar, Matt

PY - 2019/5/1

Y1 - 2019/5/1

N2 - Importance: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) play an important role in the development of clinical practice guidelines and in clinical decision making. Little is known about the registration practices of RCTs in the diagnosis and treatment of rhinosinusitis. Objectives: The primary outcome was the frequency of reported RCT registry numbers by authors of rhinosinusitis RCTs. A secondary outcome was the rates of selective reporting bias in RCTs that were prospectively registered. A tertiary outcome end point was the frequency of publication of RCTs registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Evidence Review: Our sample was derived from a PubMed (MEDLINE) search performed on October 31, 2017, using the keywords "sinusitis OR rhinosinusitis OR rhinitis," and filtering by date (January 1, 2015, through October 31, 2017) and study type (RCT). Studies that were considered an RCT were included for the primary outcome analysis. All RCTs that were registered prior to or during patient enrollment were included for secondary outcome analysis. For the tertiary outcome, a search was performed on ClinicalTrials.gov on September 4, 2018, using the keywords "sinusitis OR rhinosinusitis," and filtering by date (January 1, 2013, through October 31, 2015). All analysis took place between October 29, 2018, and October 31, 2018. Findings: A total of 179 RCTs were analyzed for our primary outcome: 94 (52.5%) included a registration number in their publication, and 70 (39.1%) were included for secondary outcome analysis of rates of selective reporting bias. Of these 70 RCTs, 22 (31%) were found to have at least 1 major discrepancy between trial registration and publication. For the tertiary outcome, 52 completed clinical trials were identified on ClinicalTrials.gov, of which 21 (40%) had listed publication in the registry. Conclusions and Relevance: We found that published rhinosinusitis RCTs frequently do not include a trial registration number and that registered RCTs frequently are not published. Furthermore, RCTs that are registered often display selective reporting of their outcomes and frequently favor positive results. We recommend strict adherence to RCT registration policies and the enforcement of accurate reporting to help strengthen the evidence behind clinical decision making.

AB - Importance: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) play an important role in the development of clinical practice guidelines and in clinical decision making. Little is known about the registration practices of RCTs in the diagnosis and treatment of rhinosinusitis. Objectives: The primary outcome was the frequency of reported RCT registry numbers by authors of rhinosinusitis RCTs. A secondary outcome was the rates of selective reporting bias in RCTs that were prospectively registered. A tertiary outcome end point was the frequency of publication of RCTs registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Evidence Review: Our sample was derived from a PubMed (MEDLINE) search performed on October 31, 2017, using the keywords "sinusitis OR rhinosinusitis OR rhinitis," and filtering by date (January 1, 2015, through October 31, 2017) and study type (RCT). Studies that were considered an RCT were included for the primary outcome analysis. All RCTs that were registered prior to or during patient enrollment were included for secondary outcome analysis. For the tertiary outcome, a search was performed on ClinicalTrials.gov on September 4, 2018, using the keywords "sinusitis OR rhinosinusitis," and filtering by date (January 1, 2013, through October 31, 2015). All analysis took place between October 29, 2018, and October 31, 2018. Findings: A total of 179 RCTs were analyzed for our primary outcome: 94 (52.5%) included a registration number in their publication, and 70 (39.1%) were included for secondary outcome analysis of rates of selective reporting bias. Of these 70 RCTs, 22 (31%) were found to have at least 1 major discrepancy between trial registration and publication. For the tertiary outcome, 52 completed clinical trials were identified on ClinicalTrials.gov, of which 21 (40%) had listed publication in the registry. Conclusions and Relevance: We found that published rhinosinusitis RCTs frequently do not include a trial registration number and that registered RCTs frequently are not published. Furthermore, RCTs that are registered often display selective reporting of their outcomes and frequently favor positive results. We recommend strict adherence to RCT registration policies and the enforcement of accurate reporting to help strengthen the evidence behind clinical decision making.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85063563310&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jamaoto.2019.0145

DO - 10.1001/jamaoto.2019.0145

M3 - Review article

C2 - 30920611

AN - SCOPUS:85063563310

VL - 145

SP - 468

EP - 474

JO - JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

JF - JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

SN - 2168-6181

IS - 5

ER -